YOUR PARTY has endured a difficult birth but with Jeremy Corbyn now at the helm it offers Britain a welcome alternative to the established parties. A founding conference is to be held in November, after which the party will begin to formulate its policies, including those relating to our constitution and legal system.

They are in need of root-and-branch reform but there is no evidence that the Prime Minister has the necessary inspiration or motivation for the task. Power does not corrupt, it reveals, and it has revealed a man who lacks substance.

Having discarded all of the principles and policies on which he stood for the leadership, and worn so many faces in a short period of time, even he seems bewildered as to which is true. He has a huge parliamentary majority but no political vision, so that he is a eunuch in possession of a harem who tours the country stirring up apathy. The time is ripe for a new party that offers a more constructive, socialist, vision which chimes with the electorate and moderates their disillusionment with politicians.

The party’s objectives will only be achievable if our system of government and law is fair, efficient and effective. That is why constitutional and legal reform are important. As Engels observed, juridical and political institutions are products of the history of class struggles and the economic conditions of their time.

Britain’s archaic constitution is the main reason why Britain has fallen behind in recent decades. It unsuited to the modern world. The problem has several aspects.

Firstly, a legislative system that includes an unelected house of the “great and the good” is out of place in a modern democracy. It is elitist, exercises no brake on the executive and is unrepresentative of the people.

Secondly, the overall quality of MPs is poor and their behaviour childish. Neither they, the speaker or party leaders have been able or willing to address that.

Thirdly, the House of Commons is controlled by the executive.

Fourthly, ministers almost never have hands-on expertise over many years of the subject matter of the department they govern, nor do their civil servants. We are where we were in 1964 when Harold Wilson said that we are led by amateurs and gentlemen in a world of players and professionals.

Fifthly, the first-past-the-post system is undemocratic. This causes disillusionment and leads to people feeling unheard and taking to the streets.

Taking all this in the round, one is bound to conclude that our system of government is inefficient, ineffective and unrepresentative. We are badly governed.

The United States constitution has proved more durable and effective. It provides us with a suitable model, appropriately modified. Ministers should not be drawn from, nor sit in, the House of Commons but be persons chosen by the prime minister who are vetted and approved by Parliament as having substantial expertise in the field covered by the department they are to head.

The fact that members of the government no longer sit in the Commons limits the role of MPs to holding the executive to account and scrutinising legislation.

They must make their mark and earn their laurels by being effective parliamentarians, not by ministerial advancement. Ambition will defend us against ambition. They should be elected by proportional representation, so that the legislature is representative of the votes cast by the people. Although this produces government by compromise, it ensures that national policies and laws have majority support and that only essential legislation is passed. At the head of government is a prime minister who, alone of all the ministers, sits in the Commons as the head of the party or coalition with the most seats.

Simply abolishing the House of Lords and moving to a unicameral system risks leaving us with a House of Commons dominated by the executive rather than a system in which Parliament is sovereign. The House of Lords should therefore be replaced by a senate. Members could be directly elected by voters or indirectly elected by local authority councils, as a bridge between local and central government. Other possibilities are election by demographic constituencies (trade unionists, business, solicitors, teachers, retirees, etc) or selection by lot (the classical Athenian system).

The Houses of Parliament (Palace of Westminster) is no longer a suitable venue for Parliament. The cramped across the aisle layout encourages confrontation, shouting and a bearpit approach to political debate. A new horseshoe-shaped venue, or one with lines of tables facing a speaker’s podium, that can accommodate all MPs, works better in other countries. The use of historical costumes is an anachronism suited only to a bygone age, and perhaps ceremonial occasions in the vacated Palace of Westminster.

Parliamentarians and ministers should be paid a much increased salary and pension, to attract better qualified candidates, and not be permitted to do outside paid work or to accept free hospitality or gifts. Any contact with lobbyists and the real source of all donations must be disclosed. Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice needs to be replaced with a new set of parliamentary rules capable of ensuring parliamentary supremacy, adult behaviour and an absence of disruptive “give way” interruptions.

The separation of powers in Britain is weak, which results in an overbearing executive. An independent judiciary, an elected senate and a Parliament separate from the executive are three important safeguards, a written constitution is another.

Our unwritten constitution worked we were a relatively homogenous society with a shared set of long-established common values. We now live in a more diverse society with fewer shared values. The consequence is a vicious culture war. A written constitution of the basic rights and responsibilities of all citizens and public bodies can establish a less fragmented framework for citizenship. What we are seeking is unity in diversity, not uniformity, and reciprocal respect between equals, an irenic approach conducive to peace and conciliation.

Our judiciary and judicial system are also in need of radical overhaul. They are largely the preserve of the privileged. This leads to considerable, unconscious class bias. If he did indeed say it, Bismarck was on the mark when he quipped that people who love sausages and people who believe in justice should never watch either of them being made.

The Judicial Appointments Commission is long overdue for abolition. Judges (including senior judges such as the Lord or Lady Chief Justice) should be nominated by a joint committee of the Law Society and Bar Council and approved (or not) by the senate.

Selection should be based on professional integrity and candidates’ career records and achievements, not on the present artificial “competencies framework,” references and interviews, all of which build a well-connected barrister bias into the system.

Historical rank-based costumes and wigs must go. If cosplay has a role in modern society, it is in the bedroom. The wig originates from the 17th century, when they became fashionable due to an outbreak of syphilis causing hair loss. Hopefully, that is not a current problem for our judges.

The underlying rationale for these changes is modernisation and a better separation of powers. It is the fate of all things to ripen and then decay. What some people revere because it is customary and historical was in bygone centuries a modern, effective system suited to the times. It is now ineffective, unsuited to these times and a barrier to success.

As Herman Melville wrote, “Those who are solely governed by the Past stand like Lot’s wife, crystallized in the act of looking backward, and forever incapable of looking before.”

The country is approaching a crisis point. After decades of poor government and economic decline, our polarised and increasingly unequal society is the perfect breeding ground for the far-right. As a country we must stop living in the shadow of a rainbow.

Our clinging to the past — ancient costumes, ceremonies and institutions — is the nostalgia that an elderly person nearing death feels for bygone days and their distant youth when they take down an old photograph album; it is an inadequate substitute for the frailty of age, an absence of joy and pride in the present and lack of hope for the future.

We have to build new institutions in keeping with the present, so that we can once more take pride in what we are, and not what we were. It is a Herculean task, akin to catching lightning in a bottle, but achievable. Out with the old, in with the new.

Anselm Eldergill is a member of Your Party. He was a judge in the Court of Protection until 2024 and is a solicitor, an honorary professor of law and an academic associate at Doughty Street Chambers.